SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
The new, temporary FBI Director Andrew G. McCabe says that employees loved Comey:
Acting FBI Director Andrew McCabe Thursday rejected assertions by the White House that FBI employees had lost faith in James Comey and that the bureau's probe into Russian election meddling was one of its most minor concerns. "I hold Director Comey in the absolute highest regard. I have the highest respect for his considerable abilities and his integrity," McCabe told members of the Senate intelligence committee. He said Comey, who was fired by President Donald Trump on Tuesday, enjoyed "broad support within the FBI and still does to this day." He added, "The majority, the vast majority of FBI employees enjoyed a deep, positive connection to Director Comey."
Furthermore, he will inform the Senate of any interference with the Russia investigation:
Acting FBI director Andrew McCabe vowed Thursday that he would tell the Senate Intelligence Committee if the White House tried to interfere with the bureau's probe of possible coordination between the Kremlin and the Trump campaign to influence the 2016 presidential election — though he asserted that there had "been no effort to impede our investigation to date."
Meanwhile, President Trump has undermined the White House's messaging on Comey's firing, saying that he planned to fire "showboat" and "grandstander" James Comey regardless of any recommendation from Attorney General Jeff Sessions or Deputy Attorney General Ron Rosenstein. The President also insists that he is not under FBI investigation.
(Score: 2) by hemocyanin on Friday May 12 2017, @04:14PM (8 children)
Don't forget the Republicans called Hillary supporters. Stupid and asinine both apply perfectly.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by ikanreed on Friday May 12 2017, @04:21PM (7 children)
Yeah, no. "Both sides are bad" is a flagrantly retarded argument whose sole intent is to ignore the tremendously awful by pointing to vague dislike.
Sorry if this is condescending, but you're a completely dishonest fuckwit for acting this way.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by HiThere on Friday May 12 2017, @05:30PM (3 children)
Both sides are and were bad and corrupt. Hillary deserved to lose. But Trump & cohorts are and were considerably worse. Unfortunately, the two main minor parties appear to be nearly as bad as Trump...though not as corrupt, but that may be due to lack of opportunity.
Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
(Score: 2) by requerdanos on Friday May 12 2017, @07:41PM
the two main minor parties appear... not as corrupt, but that may be due to lack of opportunity
To be fair, this may also be because they are better at concealing corruption.
Or it may be that one or both of them is simply interested in government of, by, and for the people, rather than in corruption.
Not too many takers for that for many decades. Anymore it's not even given lip service outside elementary school classrooms.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by hemocyanin on Saturday May 13 2017, @01:26AM (1 child)
The main difference between HRC and Trump, were:
1) While they are equally evil, HRC was the more competent evil.
2) Her win would cement Clintonism for at least a decade.
3) HRC would do all the right wing stuff Trump does (remember how she thought he didn't bomb Syria _enough_), but NOBODY would protest it because Democrats still wear the shine of being the party of the people.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 13 2017, @03:59AM
Dude.
You need to see a doctor.
Your hillary hard-on has lasted waaaaay more than 8 hours.
Priapism is a serious medical condition that can be fatal if left untreated.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 12 2017, @10:40PM (1 child)
What is a retarded argument is to strawman your opposition by making unflattering assumptions about their motives, without ever addressing their claims nor providing evidence for said assumptions.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Phoenix666 on Saturday May 13 2017, @01:18AM
I think that's generally true, but when it comes to the topic at hand do we really gain anything in the conclusion by running down the exceedingly long and depressing list of policy outcomes to support the same assertion? I mean, really, do we need to inventory bi-partisan support for the invasion of Iraq, bi-partisan support for the CIA torture program, bi-partisan support for extra-judicial killings of Americans by drone, bi-partisan support for the NSA's unconstitutional spying, bi-partisan support for the TPP...? Do we have to reiterate the daily growing list ad nauseum, ad infinitum because ostriches bury their heads in the sand, chanting "Nuh-uh! Nuh-uh!"?
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 2) by hemocyanin on Saturday May 13 2017, @01:29AM
Vague dislike? Here's a list of what HRC has done: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/russ-belville/the-problem-with-hillary-clinton_b_9349590.html [huffingtonpost.com]
If she was dude and spoke in a Texan accent, Democrats would roast her alive.